International Journal of Architectural Research

More documents

Recommendations

Info

International Journal of Architectural ResearchPantoleon Skayannis• Proposals of private investors for certain parts of the city that frequently require changingof land uses coming in conflict with existing planning regulations. These are divided intothe ones that require point changes and to those that require greater interventions and aset of changes. In both cases such interventions have to come to terms with the fact ofthe necessity for the revision of the strategic city plan of Athens. Such plans have beencriticized that are leading to an uncontrolled gentrification process which will make lowersocial strata worse off, while favouring those who have exploited the situation sometimesat the verge of legality.• Proposals (or objections to proposals) from various local, neighbourhood etc.communities of the city, and from political or municipal parties. These are normallyfocussing on partial issues of the related interested parties. In this sense they easily fallinto the trap of ‘city beautiful’ or naïve romanticism and fail to face the overall complexityof the city.• Proposals from the city planning department of the municipality of Athens ordered by themunicipal council, or the mayor, regarding special areas for which interventions aresought, or redesign is required. While such plans are more comprehensive (contrary toother plans), they face the problem that the municipality of Athens faces, i.e. lack of fullcompetence for their implementation, as this municipality has far less rights for the area ofAthens than the government ministries.As becomes evident, the proposals for the city vary and several planners have raised theobjection that the proposals are partial and many are more of an urban design nature rather thanof a planning one (esp. those of the ministry YPEKA !!!), at a time when the city needs deepstructural interventions. Undoubtedly, several of these proposals are worth serious consideration.They reflect genuine interest from several parties or entrepreneurial pursuits, but have an obviouscommon denominator: they are not comprehensive. Thus, except of a part of the RPA-2021, andeven more recently of an initiative of the mayor of Athens (Economou, Skayannis, Deffner, et al,2012) no new provisions for comprehensive planning have been made.In parallel, several of the plans are formally discussed (for approval, dismissal, or foramendments) at the district level under a procedure that is foreseen by the law. However, thequestion is how such plans are carried out with essential participation of the community theyconcern, and the general plans (for the entire city) with a considerable and meaningful publicdebate with all stakeholders concerned and individual citizens. In such a debate, the planners arenot supposed to have finalised their opinion and try to sell the plan but are expected to bereceptive of the valuable knowledge articulated in the consultations.Instead of this, public debate has acquired two faces: a) interested parties are invited toexpress their opinion about an intervention or a plan. Frequently, this becomes a formality. Thereis never enough time to study a proposal or a plan, and the interested parties often have noexpertise or the resources to deal with it (Skayannis and Kaparos, 2010). b) In other cases of amore localized nature, local communities do have and express an opinion, which up to a certainextend is taken into account. Most of the times these opinions concern local demands, andfrequently these demands are related to electioneering purposes and aims of local politicians(Skayannis and Kaparos, 2010). c) Frequently, special entrepreneurial interests are expressedand exercise pressures for measures and regulations, yet these are not harmoniously linking tothe more general approach of a plan.Yet in all cases planning is by and large top down. In this top-down context, plannersusually ask the opinions of stakeholders during the planning process and selectively utilize it, butin most cases one could reasonably argue that there is no substantial collaborative orparticipatory planning.Archnet-IJAR, Volume 7 - Issue 2 - July 2013 - (192-205) – Selected Papers202Copyright © 2013 Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research
International Journal of Architectural ResearchPantoleon SkayannisCONCLUSIONIn the unprecedented absence of funds and of political will, the situation for the moment seemsprecarious and the future uncertain. The course that planning has taken in Athens, has revealeda series of problems and contradictions:a) The contradiction between the traditional 5-year socio-economic development planssucceeded by the various Community Support (and National Strategic Reference)Frameworks [NSRF] and the spatial physical plans coming from the tradition of ‘urbanism’.b) the contradiction between the comprehensive planning approach and what one wouldprobably name the urban design architectural approach. This is related to theunderstanding of the nature of the problems of the city and what is the appropriatemethodology to face them in relation with the possible tools. Planners think that architectsare naïve when trying to solve major structural problems with merely physicalinterventions sometimes at the micro scale, while architects argue that the form of spaceleads to behaviours and uses that make a difference and lead to change.c) the contradiction between the planning approach in general and the project orientedinterventions ad hoc planning (similar to the previous era). This is a double facetphenomenon. First, big projects have been proposed contrary to the draft of the regulatorymaster plan. Second, top down interventions for change of land uses regarding specificbuildings, and for change of land uses and planning regulations for specific areas (e.g.switching from manufacturing to services land uses).Most of these contradictions are not ‘methodologically’ resolved, in the sense that besides fromwhat falls under specific law provisions (for which cases law gaps are sought in order to justifyinterventions stemming from political pressure), other things are dealt with on a more or less adhoc basis. Yet a common denominator is the lack of an organised public debate leaving space forboth stakeholders and citizens to express their opinion. The ‘Open Government’ internet basedconsultation system established in 2010, is by all means an immense progress towards thisdirection, yet insufficient as deadlines are short and several issues are not discussed since onlydrafts of Laws reach the system. In any case it, functionally, serves more as a tool for gatheringdifferent opinions rather than as a discussion platform. The limited public debate hencetransparency, leads to the challenge whether planning is needed at all.In the context of contemporary neo-liberal economies, as economic planning is notconsidered to be needed in the economy per se, the necessity of spatial planning is contested.Indeed, economy, society and planning are interlinked.New production modes based on tertiarisation and flexibility with a parallel switch tosmaller enterprise scales make firms more footloose. As argued in Skayannis 1998, “Centralauthorities, cannot plan the way they did before, as the economic space has become fluid. Inaddition, under the new wave of neo-liberalism that has been sweeping Europe since the mideightiesthe values of planning have been put under question as planning was accused of limitingthe scope and frontiers of entrepreneurs. In this sense, indicative or non-planning practices haveprevailed” (p.3). Faludi has argued that in the disjointed - incrementalist mode, the programmesconsidered by any one planning agency are limited to a few which deliberately do not exhaust theavailable action space, and ... action space is itself ill-defined. The disjointed - incrementalistmode of planning represents an atomistic image of society (A.Faludi, 1973: 155-6).Is this part of what we are facing in contemporary Athens? And if this were the case, thenwhat would it take to secure that planning is there to regulate the built environment so that publicinterest and the weaker parts of society are secure? Do citizens have a say for developmentsregarding their own city, or should this be left to the pressures of contradictory economicinterests? To what extend could the good old recipe of democracy (nowadays enriched withtransparency) be helpful to achieve better planning results?Archnet-IJAR, Volume 7 - Issue 2 - July 2013 - (192-205) – Selected Papers203Copyright © 2013 Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research
Page 3 and 4: International Journal of Architectu
Page 11: International Journal of Architectu
Page 15: International Journal of Architectu

International Journal of Architectural Research

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?